Eshetu Alemu: ‘The Black Sheep of the Dergue’ – Ethiopian War Crimes and Universal Jurisdiction in the Netherlands

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 549-559 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thijs B Bouwknegt
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
Black Sheep

“Asia for the Asians,” Bushido, and Japanese War Crimes in the Netherlands East Indies, 1942 to 1946

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred L. Borch
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
East Asian ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
White Race ◽  
East Indies ◽  
Cultural Policies ◽  
Netherlands East Indies ◽  
Important Exception ◽  
Political Economic

The 300,000 Europeans and Eurasians residing in the Indies in March 1942 soon learned that the Japanese occupiers planned to implement political, economic, and cultural policies that would integrate the newly “liberated” colony into the “Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.” This goal of “Japanization” was to transform everyone living in the Indies into loyal subjects of the Emperor, with one important exception: “Asia for the Asians” meant there was no place for the white race in the Netherlands East Indies (NEI). Additionally, the Japanese in the archipelago were true believers in the warrior code of Bushido, which led to widespread mistreatment of prisoners of war and spilled-over into the treatment of civilian internees. This chapter explains how the Japanese intended to eradicate Dutch civilization and how the “Asia for the Asians” philosophy and Bushido code of behavior resulted in the commission of horrific war crimes, especially against whites and Eurasians.

Amnesties and international humanitarian law: Purpose and scope

2018 ◽  
Vol 101 (910) ◽  
pp. 357-363
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
Geneva Conventions

States party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I of 1977 have an obligation to take measures necessary to suppress all acts contrary to their provisions. Moreover, States must investigate war crimes allegedly committed by their nationals or on their territory, and other war crimes over which they have jurisdiction, such as on the basis of universal jurisdiction, and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects. In accordance with these obligations and the limits they impose, States may adopt certain measures during and in the aftermath of armed conflicts to promote reconciliation and peace, one of which is amnesties. International humanitarian law (IHL) contains rules pertaining to the granting and scope of amnesties. Specifically, Article 6(5) of Protocol II additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) provides that, at the end of hostilities, the authorities in power shall endeavour to grant the broadest possible amnesty to persons who have participated in the armed conflict, or those deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict. Importantly, under customary IHL (as identified in Rule 159 of the ICRC customary IHL study), this excludes persons suspected of, accused of, or sentenced for war crimes in NIACs.

scholarly journals International Crimes before Dutch Courts: Recent Developments

2007 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 895-908 ◽  
Author(s):  
ELIES VAN SLIEDREGT
Keyword(s):  
War Crimes ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
European Convention ◽  
District Court ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Residence Permit ◽  
Appeal Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Right

In the early 1990s, two former members of the Afghan secret service applied for a residence permit in the Netherlands. Their request was denied on the basis of the exclusion clause of Article 1F(a) of the Vienna Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. There were serious reasons for suspecting that the men had committed war crimes during the Afghan civil war of 1979–92. In 2000, the immigration authorities transmitted the files of the two men to the public prosecution office, which initiated prosecutions in 2003. At the trial, defence counsel raised various preliminary challenges. They argued that the case should be declared inadmissible since relying on the immigration files would violate the nemo tenetur principle and the right against self-incrimination enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, the court had no universal jurisdiction over violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions since there was no international rule mandating a right to universal jurisdiction over war crimes committed in non-international armed conflicts. The Hague District Court dismissed the defence challenges and eventually convicted the Afghan nationals to 9 and 12 years' imprisonment. The Hague Appeal Court endorsed most of the findings of the District Court and confirmed the convictions and sentences. The reasoning underlying the decisions, both at first instance and at appeal, raise questions particularly with regard to universal jurisdiction. In this article the defence arguments are explored and the reasoning of the courts is analysed.

Implementing Universal Jurisdiction Over Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions

2000 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 815-854 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard van Elst
Keyword(s):  
War Crimes ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
Geneva Conventions

As the most serious war crimes (grave breaches) should not be left unpunished, the 1949 Geneva Conventions contain an unusually worded obligation to either prosecute such a suspected war criminal or to hand him over to another country to be tried there (aut judicare aut dedere in stead of aut dedere aut judicare). Fifty years on, less than one in six of the parties to the Conventions have established universal jurisdiction over grave breaches which is necessary to prosecute a suspect if he was to be found in their country. An assessment and classification of the Conventions, national laws, prosecutions and practical obstacles. But if, what God forbid, these Conventions should ever have to be applied, they must be obeyed.M.W. Mouton, Diplomatic Conference, Geneva 16 July 1949

Conclusion

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred L. Borch
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
East Indies ◽  
Netherlands East Indies ◽  
The Law ◽  
War Crimes Tribunals ◽  
The Impact

The Dutch convened military tribunals, and prosecuted those responsible for war crimes during the occupation of the Netherlands East Indies, for one reason: To punish those who had murdered, tortured, and otherwise brutally mistreated the Dutch, Eurasian, Chinese, Indian, Malay, and Indonesian citizens of the colony. This chapter looks at the impact of the trials on Indonesia (and Indonesians) and on the Netherlands. It briefly discusses how war crimes committed by Dutch Army forces against Indonesians between 1946 and 1949 undermined the legitimacy of the war crimes tribunals in the eyes of some Indonesians. The chapter concludes by looking the influence of the temporary courts-martial proceedings on the development of the law of international armed conflict.

Introduction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred L. Borch
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Legal History ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
World War ◽  
Post World War Ii ◽  
East Indies ◽  
War Criminals ◽  
Netherlands East Indies ◽  
War Crimes Trials

The post-World War II trials of war criminals in the Netherlands East Indies (NEI) are not well known, and the chief goal of this book is to change that forever, if only because these prosecutions were unique in legal history.Between September 1946 and December 1949, Dutch colonial authorities convicted 1,038 Japanese (and Koreans and Formosans) and a handful of Europeans, Eurasians, Chinese, and Indonesians for war-related offenses. NEI authorities convened nearly 450 “temporary courts-martial” in twelve locations in the archipelago known today as Indonesia; only U.S. authorities conducting war crimes trials in the Asiatic-Pacific Theater held more trials....

scholarly journals Dutch Criminal Justice for Ethiopian War Crimes

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 633-659
Author(s):  
Lachezar Yanev
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Legislation And Jurisprudence ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Principle Of Legality

Abstract The past few years have witnessed a proliferation of universal jurisdiction proceedings in Europe, many of which concern asylum seekers suspected of committing international crimes in Syria and the wider region. Alongside the known practical challenges of such trials, these trials also raise a range of normative questions regarding inter alia the scope of universal jurisdiction and the applicable legal standards in such proceedings. This article unpacks several such questions through the lens of a recent Dutch case in which a former refugee, who was granted asylum in The Netherlands and later obtained Dutch citizenship, was tried and convicted by a local court in The Hague of war crimes committed in Ethiopia four decades ago. The judges used an amalgam of Dutch and (customary) international criminal law to convict the accused. They defined the charged war crimes in strict conformity with the standards established in international legislation and jurisprudence, relied exclusively on Dutch law to define one of the applied modes of criminal liability (co-perpetration), and synthesized Dutch and international law to define the other (command responsibility). To what extent does the notion of universal jurisdiction accommodate such choices of law, and how is the use of domestic criminal law on modes of liability in such proceedings compatible with the principle of legality?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document